Laws of Conservation of Mass/Energy are impossible…?
From what I read:
"The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy.
Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity shows that energy can be converted to mass (rest mass) and mass converted to energy. Therefore, neither mass nor pure energy are conserved separately, as it was understood in pre-relativistic physics. Today, conservation of “energy” refers to the conservation of the total mass-energy, which includes energy of the rest mass. Therefore, in an isolated system, mass and "pure energy" can be converted to one another, but the total amount of energy (which includes the energy of the mass of the system) remains constant.
Another consequence of this law is that perpetual motion machines can only work perpetually if they deliver no energy to their surroundings. If such machines produce more energy than is put into them, they must lose mass and thus eventually disappear over perpetual time, and are therefore impossible."
and…
"The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system will remain constant over time, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This is also the main idea of the first law of thermodynamics.
As opposed to mass conservation, the principle of matter conservation (in the sense of conservation of particles which are agreed to be "matter") may be considered as an approximate physical law, that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Another difficulty with the idea of conservation of "matter," is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles which are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place, even in closed systems.
Mass is also not generally conserved in open systems, when various forms of energy are allowed into, or out of, the system (see for example, binding energy). However, the law of mass conservation for closed systems, as viewed over time from any single inertial frame, continues to be true in modern physics. The reason for this is that relativistic equations show that even "massless" particles such as photons still add mass and energy to closed systems, allowing mass (though not matter) to be conserved in all processes where energy does not escape the system. In relativity, different observers may disagree as to the particular value of the mass of a given system, but each observer will agree that this value does not change over time, so long as the system is closed.
The historical concept of both matter and mass conservation is widely used in many fields such as chemistry, mechanics, and fluid dynamics. In modern physics, only mass conservation for closed systems continues to be true exactly."
With all this in mind, here are my questions:
1. What, ultimately, will be the fate of the universe? Will matter and energy simply exist forever, thereby proving the Conservation Law that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed? So if the law is true, the universe will exist forever?
2. If our universe is among many billions of "multiverses", it is possible that millions of Big Bangs are occurring now, creating and replacing universes?
3. If energy is never destroyed, is it infinite? I suppose that means perpetual motion is also possible?
May 30th, 2010 
admin 
